100-year-old Somerset oak tree saved from axe despite damage to nearby home
The decision has been made by the council
Last updated 27th May 2026
A 100-year-old oak tree within a Somerset housing estate has been saved from being chopped down following a decision by Somerset Council.
The tree lies within the back garden of 5 Collett Way in Frome, not far from Commerce Park and a proposed development of 360 homes near the town’s rugby club.
Jessica Ohren, who owns the property, applied for permission to remove the tree (which has been subject to a tree protection order since 1989), claiming that it was responsible for subsidence in her garage and conservatory.
But Somerset Council has refused Ms Ohren’s request, arguing that the tree has “outstanding amenity value” and that removing it could actually worsen damage to the property.
Ms Ohren’s agent said that there was “clear evidence of subsidence-related damage” to the property, including sloping and cracking to the garage floor and “significant cracking” to the external and internal walls of the conservatory.
They further claimed roots has been found “directly within the foundation zone” of the house, making it “highly probable the tree is a principal contributing factor to the subsidence”.
They stated: “The damage is ongoing and likely to worsen.
“While the tree has amenity value, it is now unsuitable for retention in its current location due to its direct impact on built structures.”
Local resident Sally Nilsson objected to the tree’s felling, arguing that it was Ms Ohren’s responsibility to ensure the stability of her house without damaging the local environment.
She said: “The house should never have been built so close to it.
“The root system is at least as wide below ground as it is compared to the canopy above.
“The house needs to be underpinned and the tree must be saved.
“Removing the tree could have significant issues to do with flooding and structure damage of the house.”
Frome Town Council objected to this “high-value” tree being cut down, arguing it “pre-dates the surrounding housing development and makes an important contribution to local amenity and character”.
A spokesperson added: “There is insufficient justification to conclude that the alleged subsidence is directly attributable to the tree, to assess the extent and significance of any structural damage, or to demonstrate that felling represents the most appropriate solution as opposed to alternative mitigation measures.”
The council refused planning permission through the dedicated powers of its planning officers, rather than a public decision by its planning committee east (which handles major applications within the former Mendip area).
Planning officer Nick Ball said: “Our refusal to fell this oak is in the interest of good arboricultural practice, because the building with damage doesn’t meet the necessary building regulations, and due to the tree’s outstanding amenity value.
“It is now undisputed that ancient and veteran trees, and particularly oaks, collectively support greater habitat for biodiversity than any other habitat type in Europe.
“It is not enough simply to note the proximity of a building and a tree, and to deduce that the tree is responsible for any damage found in the building.”
Because trees absorb large amounts of moisture, their removal can lead to ‘ground heave’ (often simply called heave), where the soil where the tree once stood absorbed moisture, expands and rises up.
Mr Ball warned that such an effect could take place if the tree were to be removed, which could in turn cause additional damage to the property.
He reasons: “Oak is a species associated with persistent soil moisture deficits.
“The oak covered this order is far older than 5 Collett Way, therefore the tree may be causing a persistent soil moisture deficit, and if it were to be felled there may well be subsequent heave.”
Ms Ohren has not indicated whether she will challenge the council’s decision through an appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.